Appeal No. 1998-3207 Page 10
Application No. 08/518,874
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed
as a means or step for performing a specified function
without the recital of structure, material, or acts in
support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to
cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The court's holding in Donaldson sets a limit on how broadly
the USPTO may construe means-plus-function language under the
rubric of "reasonable interpretation." Per Donaldson, the
"broadest reasonable interpretation" that an examiner may give
means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in
paragraph six. Accordingly, the USPTO may not disregard the
structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such
language when rendering a patentability determination.
The structure described in the appellants' specification
(see pp. 7-10) corresponding to the "means for linking" is the
shallow slot or recess 30 formed in the bottom surface 16b of
the injection head 16 and extending axially between the vacuum
slot 18 and the injection slot 20.
We have reviewed the teachings of Bird, Timson, Pasch and
Wieser but fail to find any teaching therein of the claimed
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007